It seems to me these should be mentioned in the prose specification, and I think they ought to be the name and description (by default) of the Dataflow is the data has been reported with reference to a dataflow or data provisioning agreement, or the name and description of the DSD if the data has been reported with reference to the DSD. Those seem pretty much needed to interpret the data in the message, and since Dataflows can provide important context, it would seem misleading to always use the DSD name and description there (which one might otherwise think).
(In doubt, please handle this as a public review comment on SDMX 3.1 once the comment period begins.)
https://github.com/sdmx-twg/sdmx-json/blob/71fe5eaa9fcd29e3c15f2f0216a19b9b650b1dbd/data-message/docs/1-sdmx-json-field-guide.md#structure does not say
$.data.structures[*]can take thenameanddescriptionproperties, but they are allowed by the schema (this actually confused me to a point where I thought it needs to have anidaswell).It seems to me these should be mentioned in the prose specification, and I think they ought to be the name and description (by default) of the Dataflow is the data has been reported with reference to a dataflow or data provisioning agreement, or the name and description of the DSD if the data has been reported with reference to the DSD. Those seem pretty much needed to interpret the data in the message, and since Dataflows can provide important context, it would seem misleading to always use the DSD name and description there (which one might otherwise think).
(In doubt, please handle this as a public review comment on SDMX 3.1 once the comment period begins.)